CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion

Hey, guys,

You think we have problems now.

Just wait until Obamacare kicks in!

Are the Democrats completely nuts or what? And to top it off, they have absolutely no idea how the nation is going to fund this brand new entitlement program and pay for all of this new legislated spending that now has become law!

"So, after racking up higher deficit spending in two years than President Bush (or any other president) did in two terms, President Obama would leave his successor a 12-figure deficit related to Obamacare alone — for the period from 2017 to 2019 alone. That’s according to the CBO."

And what would we get for all of this? The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance.

 

Wow, that article is from March 18, 2010...

 

Who'd a thunk it!!??

Who would have ever conceived that subsidizing or fully funding health care premiums for the lefts reported "47 million without health insurance" would create larger deficits?!

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing lying frauds.

 

You are absolutely correct, webrockk.

Latest CBO Analysis: Obamacare, when fully implemented, would cost U.S. taxpayers over $2 Trillion.



"What exactly will Obamacare do for you? The CBO says our health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance. How would we pay for all of this? According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion."

 

And your point is?

Is this the best you have to offer?

The CBO and The Medicare Chief Actuary both stand by this alalysis.

The conclusions are the same today as they were at this time last year.

The point is, toddwv, thanks to the Democrats, when Obamacare finally kicks in, the credit downgrades to the full faith and credit of the United States will only get much worse!

 

We still have a debt crisis, right? Why do we still have open-window spending policies?

 

Good question, Joe Six-pack.

I believe this idiot may be at the root of the problem!



"Whatever debt resolution the Republicans send me to solve our national crisis is dead on arrival!"

 

The total cost of the Health Care Reform Bill was 1.1 Trillion.

But most of that was from moving funds from existing Federal Health care programs.

The additional net increase to the Federal Budget was just 200 Billlon over 10 years. Or 20 Billion per year. .00667. Not even a 1% increase in the yearly budget.

Additionally, the program takes in more money than it spends thus reducing the Federal deficit by 210 Billion over 10 years.

It's all here at the CBO website.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2088

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf

<<<Mod edit: Flamebait>>>

 

No poor boy.

You didn't post the CBO director's analysis....You posted a right wing propaganda piece from the National Review.

Only one person here posted the CBO's actual estimates and that was a liberal.

 

"Latest CBO Analysis: Obamacare, when fully implemented, would cost U.S. taxpayers over $2 Trillion."


Then post the CBO analysis that says this?

The fact of the matter is there is no analysis that says this.

<<<Mod edit> Insult>>>

 

I think the problem is much deeper and older than that, but yes.

 

As usual, people who rant against the Affordable Care Act have very few of their facts straight.

Gross debt was about 56% when Bush took office and it was about 95% at the beginning of this year. So, the question hinges on whether it was above or below 75% in January 2009. This is a difficult question since hard statistics only exist for September 30th of every year; at the end of September 2008, the debt was 69% and at the end of September 2009, it was 84%. To determine whether your allegation is true or false, it's crucial to estimate what the debt was at the inauguration point of the chaotic fiscal year 2009.

If about two-fifths or more of fiscal year 2009's increase took place under Bush's four months (October through January), your allegation is true. Given that Bush spent $700 billion nigh-instantly on TARP and Obama spent only a portion of the $800 billion Recovery Act in that fiscal year, and also that the GDP tumbled hugely in Q4 2008, I'd estimate that most of the rise in gross debt as a percentage of GDP in that fiscal year happened under Bush.

Of course, it's quite a close contest: the increase during Bush's 8 years wasn't that much more than the increase during Obama's first 2 years. It should be noted, though, that Obama's big deficit spending increases and Obama's big deficit tax cuts are all devoted to recovering from the Bush recession and to winning the Bush wars. In addition, the economic stagnation that inflates all percentage-of-GDP numbers is a direct result of developments under Bush.

The market crashed during Bush's very last quarter as president. Obama has paid most of the costs.

The Affordable Care Act has a small deficit in the years 2010, 2011, 2016, and 2017: $14 billion total with some rounding error. Over the full 2010-2019 decade, though, it runs a net surplus of $143 billion, no rounding error. (See table 2.)

Before accounting for subsidies, average premiums will certainly rise, since insurers can no longer deny care based on pre-existing conditions. After subsidies, though, average premiums will not rise: in fact, people who buy their own insurance will on average see their premiums slashed by more than half. (See table 1.)

In other words, the health sector will expand.

This is almost 60% less than the baseline.

 

Once again, you are very mistaken padcrasher.

These websites only confirm the conclusions that were expressed by the atricle.

Nice try, guy, but no cigar!



With these comments, "padcrasher" drops another one!"

 

500 Billion New Reasons To Invalidate ObamaCare:

A few hundred billion dollars here, a few hundred billion dollars there — sooner or later we're talking about the real cost of Barack Obama's new socialized medicine monstrosity.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Apparently, passing the legislation was also a prerequisite to determining its actual price tag — which as it turns out is much higher than anyone fathomed.

The latest cost overrun associated with ObamaCare? A $500 billion "error" associated with insuring the spouses and children of new entitlement recipients. That's $500 billion in additional deficit spending — although it didn't stem from an "error" so much as it was the result of a deliberate miscalculation.

As it attempted to calculate ObamaCare's true fiscal impact, the Congressional Budget Office was explicitly instructed to ignore the cost of covering family members under new eligibility requirements for low-income private sector employees.

"The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this (because) they were expressly told to do their modeling on single coverage," researcher Richard Burkhauser told the Daily Caller this month.

Documents obtained from the Democratic-controlled Joint Committee on Taxation confirm Burkhauser's account — and demonstrate the lengths to which Obama supporters went in an effort to hide these costs from the taxpayers.

Obviously this isn't the first "oversight" associated with this unconstitutional abomination. In March of 2011, Obama's heath care czarina Kathleen Sebelius was forced to acknowledge under oath that the government double-counted $529 billion in "savings" associated with the implementation of the legislation.

Numerous other errors and omissions have been uncovered within ObamaCare's fuzzy math — including a $52 billion raid of Social Security and a $72 billion repayment obligation for a new "long-term care trust fund."

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates released on the eve of its passage in March 2010, ObamaCare was originally projected to add $109 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years.

We can now add more than $1 trillion to that total (and counting), shredding once and for all Obama's ridiculous claim that his signature legislation is "one of the biggest deficit-reduction plans in history."

It's also critical to remember that all of this deficit spending comes after the imposition of new tax hikes totaling hundreds of billions of dollars — a double whammy for taxpayers.

In addition to its infamous (and unconstitutional) individual mandate, ObamaCare also includes a new employer mandate tax, a new tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans, the creation of a new 3.8% surtax on investment income for households that earn more than $250,000, increases in Medicaid payroll taxes, a new tax on medical device manufacturers, a new tanning tax, a tax hike on drug companies and at least a dozen other new "revenue enhancements."

Many of these tax hikes have already been implemented — siphoning money away from our economy at the worst possible time. They're also being collected even after a federal judge struck down ObamaCare in its entirety.

Also — and this is a critical point — the official cost projections for ObamaCare factor in a decade's worth of tax hikes and deficit spending and only six years of programmatic "benefits." Obviously, that discrepancy vastly understates the long-term impact of ObamaCare on federal deficits.

During the recent debt-ceiling debate, Republican leaders proved unwilling to make major inroads in reducing the federal government's mushrooming debt. They also abandoned key long-term fiscal restraints aimed at lowering future deficits.

As a new "supercommittee" convenes to take another stab at these long-overdue reforms, it's clear that gutting ObamaCare must be its first order of business.

Source

 

Again, you are very mistaken, sleepwalker.

Check this out.

 

Hey, Sleepwalker!

Sorry to disappoint you, but these are not official CBO reports.

They are merely "blogs" and a cover letter and as such they have absolutely no credibly whatsoever.

Come up with some reliable official report and then we can talk.

Until then, don't waste my time with unverifiable opinion pieces cleverly passed off as someone&#8217;s &#8220;blog&#8221;!

By the way, check this out!

 

That's funny. I didn't know that cbo.gov was a blog.

Or was the second link the "cover letter"? 36 pages is a really long cover letter, and regardless, I'm not sure how you can discount a cover letter from the CBO as being unreliable.

 

Great post, onalandline.

Thanks for sharing this wonderful article.

The remarks in this article are very sincere, directly to the point and well crafted!

James Cessna

 

Yes, hiimjered, it is a blog.

It says so at the top of the page!

And here are several reasons the infornmation in the "cover letter" cannot be trusted.

""The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this (because) they were expressly told to do their modeling on single coverage," researcher Richard Burkhauser told the Daily Caller this month."

 

There are two sets of pragmatic policies to deal with the rising costs of funding Obamacare:

1. Make it so that you only have to pay into the system if you intend to utilize it, and make an emergency voluntary financing fund on the side if it runs low on capital. Then, implement a "waiver" system that allows all current tax payers that wish to withdraw from the system to "waive" their coverage and payments.

2. Defund Obamacare on a federal level, and have mandatory state referendums to set up universal healthcare systems. Utilize the money left over from Obamacare to pay down the national debt, and put some of the money towards an infrastructure and stimulus fund. Furthermore, set up an infrastructure and stimulus committee in Congress that will gather research from economists and businesses on how to properly enact a stimulus, and pass eventually use money saved in the stimulus and infrastructure fund to finance the projects and initiatives in future stimulus legislation.

 

Great suggestion, Diplomat.

Your remarks are very sincere, directly to the point and well crafted!

I especially liked this suggestion, "Defund Obamacare on a federal level, and have mandatory state referendums to set up universal healthcare systems. Utilize the money left over from Obamacare to pay down the national debt, and put some of the money towards an infrastructure and stimulus fund."

Thiese ideas will more than likely happen. Obamacare is now on its deathbed. Without the "individual mandate" in place, this legislation (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) will not have sufficient income from the individual polivyholders to survive.

 

The first link was to CBO Blog (written by the CBO Director.) The Second link was a document hosted at the CBO written by the CBO to the House. It was a report, not a blog.

Regardless, the actual report to congress that is discussed by the director in his blog states:

 

I've never once heard of Government forcing a referendum on States.

Why do people think the only purpose of Federal Government is to force individual States to do things?

 

This is nothing but propaganda put out for public consumption by the Obama administration.

Its only purpose is to deceive the taxpayers and conceal the true cost of the legislation.

Do not believe it.

Here, unfortunately, is the actual truth.

"And what would we get for all of this? The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance."